picture of forest

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

The retired American military commander who earlier said in a statement released to WND that Americans need to confront Barack Obama’s tyranny now is recommending the Egyptian model through which to do that.

The Egyptian model, Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely explained on a podcast of an Internet radio show, was that 33 million people stood up to their government and told officials "No."

The result was that the Egyptian Muslim Brother was removed from power and then-President Mohammed Morsi was removed from office, Vallely explained,

His call for a massive march on Washington came recently on the WBTM (We Become The Media) show.

He was asked whether America can be restored as the shining light on the hill for freedom when the electoral process, which resulted in two presidencies for Obama in 2008 and 2012, “are known to be corrupt.”

Vallely said the absence of leadership in the White House and Congress makes it difficult, and he said, “I’m not even sure our traditional process will straighten our government out in time to save us.”

And he said processes like impeachment simply won’t happen.

Then he suggested the Egyptian model, and he said millions of Americans need to “stand up” to Washington “within the next 12 months.”

He said doing nothing is not an option, because Washington won’t fix itself and “hope is not a strategy.”

“We need something … a no confidence vote,” he suggested. And perhaps legislation that could create a national recall process.

“We need to get off our derrieres, march at the state capitol, march in Washington,” he said. “Make citizens arrests.”

He said when there are those who are “conducting treason … violating the Constitution, violating our laws,” it should not be overlooked.

“When you have a president and his team who don’t care about the Constitution, they will do anything they can to win,” he said.

The founder of Stand Up America, an organization that provides education resources for leaders and activists based on the values of the Founding Fathers, said:

“Clearly America has lost confidence and no longer trusts those in power at a most critical time in our history,” Vallely said. “It is true that not all who ply the halls of power fit under that broad brush, but most of them are guilty of many egregious acts and we say it is time to hold a vote of no confidence. It’s time for a ‘recall.’”

Vallely believes the “credibility of our current leadership is gone.”

Now, he said, “we listen to their excuses, finger-pointing, lies and all manner of chicanery.”

He admitted there is no legal authority in a vote of no confidence, but he argued it will “take back the power of discourse.”

“What else is our nation to do now that the ‘rule-of-law’ has effectively been thrown out the window by the Obama administration? How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?” he asked.

“Harry Reid still controls the Senate, so like in Clinton’s day, forget about a finding of guilty,” he wrote. “Incidentally, if Obama was found guilty and removed from office, Joe Biden would step in, Valerie Jarrett still wields all the power, and likely we get more of the same.”

The Constitution can be amended without going through Congress, he pointed out, but it would take too much time, “a luxury we just do not have it we are going to save our republic.”

“That brings us to the other word no one wants to utter, revolution. In our opinion, this is the least palatable option. … Others talk about the military taking over as we saw in Egypt; again, we do not support this route,” he said.

His promise not to allow lobbyists to work in his administration. (They have.)

His commitment to slash earmarks. (He didn’t.)

To be the most transparent presidency in history. (He’s not.)

To put an end to “phony accounting.” (It started almost on Day 1 and continues.)

And to restore trust in government. (Trust in government is at near-historic lows.)

His pledge to seek public financing in the general election. (He didn’t.)

To treat super-PACS as a “threat to democracy.” (He embraced them.)

His pledge to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. (It remained above 8 percent for the longest stretch since the Great Depression.)

To create five million new energy jobs alone. (The total number of jobs created in Obama’s first term was roughly one-tenth that figure.)

To identify all those “shovel-ready’ jobs. (Mr. Obama later chuckled that his much-hyped “shovel-ready projects” were “not as shovel-ready as we expected.”)

To lift two million Americans from poverty. (A record 46 million Americans are living in poverty during the Obama era.)

His promise to bring down health care premiums by $2,500 for the typical family (they went up) … allow Americans to keep the health care coverage they currently have (many can’t) … refuse to fund abortion via the Affordable Care Act (it did) … to respect religious liberties (he has violated them) … and the insistent that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was not a tax (it is).

Obama’s pledge to stop the rise of oceans. (It hasn’t.)

To “remake the world” and to “heal the planet.” (Hardly.)

To usher in a “new beginning” based on “mutual respect” with the Arab and Islamic world and “help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East.” (Come again?)

To punish Syria if it crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons. (The “red line” was crossed earlier this year – and nothing of consequence happened.)

That as president “I don’t bluff.” (See the previous sentence on Syria.)

And of course the much-ballyhooed Russian reset. (Tensions between Russia and the United States are increasing and examples of Russia undermining U.S. interests are multiplying.)

And let’s not forget Mr. Obama’s promise to bring us together. (He is the most polarizing president in the history of the Gallup polling.)

Or his assurance to us that he would put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.” (All three have increased during the Obama presidency.)

And his counsel to us to “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” (Remind me again whose campaign allies accused Mitt Romney of being responsible for the cancer death of a steelworker’s wife.)

“It is time to recall the reprobates and reclaim the power of the people,” Vallely said. “We need to start with the White House and all of Obama’s appointees, especially Eric Holder. … Then on to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – the architects who shoved Obamacare down our throats. We also cannot forget John Boehner and company who openly castigate the tea-party caucus which are only doing that which they campaigned upon.”

Vallely quoted commentator Andrew C. McCarthy, who said that “absent the political will to remove the president, he will remain president no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors he stacks up. … and absent the removal of the president, the United States will be fundamentally transformed.”

Vallely noted that while the U.S. Constitution lacks a provision for a “recall” at the federal level, “there is nothing to prevent its use as a comprehensive de facto indictment and conviction for contempt of Congress, violations of oath of office and of the Constitution itself – for all the reasons stated in such a resolution.”

He warned of growing “tyrannical centralized rule” without action.

There may be advances in the 2014 elections, but will that be a solution?

“Obama is still the president, and his Cabinet and appointees still remain in power. … Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect. His track record shows us that no matter what the make-up of Congress is, he will twist his way around it with a pen and secure even more power reminiscent of a dictator,” Vallely said.

“When that does not work, he will manipulate the courts and law enforcement will be run by fiat, choosing winners and losers.”

Congress already is addressing charges that Obama is violating the Constitution.

WND reported when Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Obama’s actions have reached “an unprecedented level, and we’ve got to do something about it.

“Assume that a statute said you had to provide two forms of ID to vote. Can the president require three forms? Can the president require one form? Can you suspend all requirements? If not, why not?” he said. “If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?”

Gowdy cited Obama’s decisions to ignore certain immigration laws, even though Congress did not approve the changes. He also cited arbitrary changes to the Obamacare law and Obama’s “recess appointments” of judges even though the U.S. Senate was not in recess.

His proposal is for Congress to take the White House to court over the president’s actions, through a resolution proposed by Rep. Tom Rice, R-Ga., that would authorize the House to sue the Obama administration. It has 30 co-sponsors.

Rice said that because of “this disregard of our country’s checks and balances, many of you have asked me to bring legal action against the president.”

“After carefully researching the standing the House of Representatives has and what action we can take, I have introduced a resolution to stop the president’s clear overreach,” he said.

“Why not?” asked Gowdy, “If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statutes, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act – why not election laws?”

Turley has represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases. He now says Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.

He was addressing a House Judiciary Committee hearing Dec. 4. Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: “Professor Turley, the Constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?”

Turley replied: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”

Turley explained that the “Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration.”

“There are two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress,” he said. “One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.”

Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia.

Turley also has served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia Supreme Court. He’s been a consultant on homeland security, and his articles appear regularly in national publications such as the New York Times and USA Today.

WND reported that it was at the same hearing that Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is “one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government.”

“Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it,” he said.

“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”

Cannon said it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

Several members of Congress also contributed their opinions in an interview with talk-show host Sean Hannity.

See the Hannity segment:

Vallely explained that a “no confidence” vote now “would also tell the world that we recognize the mess this administration has wrought upon the world and we do not support his actions. Despite what supporters of Obama say about our standing in the world, the world is laughing at us. We are not pleased!”

Without that action, he writes, “Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect.”

Did you enjoy this article? Like us on Facebook. You won't regret it. We post cool and informative stuff like this every day.

Monday, December 30, 2013

Dr. Bill van Bise, electrical engineer, conducting a demonstration of Soviet scientific data and schematics for beaming a magnetic field into the brain to cause visual hallucinations. Source: CNNSource: Supplied

THE race to put man on the Moon wasn't enough of a battle for the global super powers during the Cold War.

At the time, the Soviet Union and the United States were in an arms race of a bizarre, unconventional kind - that has been exposed in a new report.

The Soviets poured at least $1 billion into developing mind-controlling weaponry to compete with similar programs undertaken in the US.

While much still remains classified, we can now confirm the Soviets used methods to manipulate test subjects' brains.

The paper, by Serge Kernbach, at the Research Centre of Advanced Robotics and Environmental Science in Stuttgart, Germany, details the Soviet Union's extensive experiments, called "psychotronics". The paper is based on Russian technical journals and recently declassified documents outlining practices from 1917 to 2003.

Still from Secret Russia: Moscow The Zombies of the Red Czar, a German TV documentary, 1998.Source: Supplied

The paper outlines how the Soviets developed "cerpan", a device to generate and store high-frequency electromagnetic radiation and the use of this energy to affect other objects.

"If the generator is designed properly, it is able to accumulate bioenergy from all living things - animals, plants, humans - and then release it outside," the paper said.

The psychotronics program, known in the US as "parapsychology", involves unconventional research into mind control and remote influence - and was funded by the government.

With only limited knowledge of each other's mind-bending programs, the Soviets and Americans were both participating in similar secret operations, with areas of interest often mirroring the other country's study.

The original scheme of transmitting and receiving bio-circuitry of the human nervous system. Picture: B. B. KazhinskiySource: Supplied

The psychotronics project draws similarities to part of the controversial programMKUltra in the US. The CIA program ran for 20 years, has been highly documented since being investigated in the 1970s and was recently dramatised in the movie The Men Who Stare at Goats.

The Men Who Stare at Goats. Picture: Smokehouse PicturesSource: Supplied

Scientists involved in the MKUltra program researched the possibility of manipulating people's minds by altering their brain functions using electromagnetic waves. This program led to the development of pyschotronic weapons, which were intended to be used to perform these mind-shifting functions.

The illegal research subjected humans to experiments with drugs, such as LSD, hypnosis and radiological and biological agents. Shockingly, some studies were conducted without the subject's knowledge.

A US Marine Corps truck carries an Active Denial System. It is a nonlethal weapon that uses directed energy and projects a beam of waves up to 1000 metres. When fired at a human, it delivers a heat sensation to the skin and generally makes humans stop what they are doing and run.Source: AAP

Kernbach's paper on the Soviet Union's psychotronics program fails to mention one thing - the results. He also doesn't detail whether there are ongoing programs in this area in the US or Russia, which became the successor state of the Russian SFSRfollowing the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, but there are suspicions.

Putin made mention of futuristic weaponry last year in a presidential campaign article.

"Space-based systems and IT tools, especially in cyberspace, will play a great, if not decisive role in armed conflicts. In a more remote future, weapon systems that use different physical principles will be created (beam, geophysical, wave, genetic, psychophysical and other types of weapons). All this will provide fundamentally new instruments for achieving political and strategic goals in addition to nuclear weapons," hewrote.

Example of a generator from the psychotronics program.Source: Supplied

The newly declassified information outlined in the report only touches on the Soviet psychotronics program and the bizarre experiments undertaken. With so much information still classified, will we ever know the whole truth?

Dreonna Breton got fired because she refused a mandatory flu shot. A registered nurse, she's pregnant and has a history of miscarriage.

Breton says she became alarmed by notifications such as this, contained in the packaging of a popular flu vaccine: ""Fluzone should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed."

Similar statements accompany other brands. So do notifications that it's unknown whether flu vaccine can harm an unborn child. Breton says she's had two miscarriages in four pregnancies and refuses to take the chance.

"I have lost my job, one that I love and am good at, because I chose to do what I believe is best for my baby." - Dreonna Breton

"It would be a false statement to say the flu vaccine is known to be safe during pregnancy," says Breton, 29, of Elizabethtown. "I have lost my job, one that I love and am good at, because I chose to do what I believe is best for my baby."

But she faces a rising tide of mandatory flu vaccination policies at health care organizations including hospitals and nursing homes. The intent is to prevent health care workers from spreading the flu to the elderly and others with weakened immune systems who are at high risk of dying from the flu.

Breton is further at odds with conventional wisdom of doctors and public health experts, who say flu vaccine is highly beneficial to most people, and especially beneficial to pregnant women.

"I would say she has a million times greater chance of of having a problem if she gets the disease rather than the vaccine," says Dr. Alan Peterson, the director of environmental and community medicine at Lancaster General Health.

Peterson says pregnancy changes the immune system, and a case of the flu can pose a severe threat to mother and unborn child. That's why organizations such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend flu shots for most pregnant women.

Breton worked for Horizon Healthcare Services, which provides drug and nutrition infusion services to patients in their homes. Horizon is co-owned by Lancaster General and several other hospitals, including Harrisburg-based PinnacleHealth System.

Horizon is among the growing number of health care organizations requiring employees to get flu shots, as are Lancaster General and PinnacleHealth.

Breton says she explained her flu shot reservations to her employer, and also provided a doctor's note which described her history of miscarriage. The doctor wrote, "In my view getting the flu shot would significantly and negatively impact her health because of the increased fear and anxiety it would create as well as the emotional impact it could cause if she does miscarry again."

Breton says she offered to wear a mask during work. Some health care organizations allow employees who don't receive a flu shot to wear a mask.

Carolyn Carlson, a registered nurse and the president of Horizon, said in an email that requests for exemptions are reviewed by a committee of doctors. She wrote that flu vaccination is a condition of employment because it "protects our patients, employees, and community from getting this potentially serious infection."

Flu causes about 24,000 deaths and 150,000 hospitalizations annually. It's highly contagious and is typically spread when droplets released when an infected person coughs or sneezes reach another person.

The CDC recommends flu shots for health care workers. This includes doctors and nurses as well as staff such as housekeepers, maintenance staff and volunteers.

The CDC estimated 72 percent of health care workers were vaccinated in the 2012-2013 flu season, up from 63.5 percent two years earlier.

The University of Loyola Heath System in Chicago first required employees to get flu shots in 2009, becoming one of the nation's first hospital systems to do so. It recently reported a vaccination rate of nearly 99 percent. It said fewer than 15 employees out of 8,000 chose termination rather than vaccination since 2009.

Such policies typically allow exceptions for religious or medical reasons such as a previous history of allergic reaction to the vaccine.

Breton says she received a flu shot during her first year as a nurse as a result of "peer pressure."

She says she doesn't totally oppose vaccinations. But she says she has "reservations" about some, including the chicken pox vaccine, which she contends haven't been sufficiently researched or aren't critically important.

But Peterson, the Lancaster General physician, says there's substantial research backing up the position that flu shots are beneficial for most people in terms of protecting them from a potentially serious illness, and in minimizing spread of the flu by reducing the number of people who can carry it.

In general, flu shots are recommended for most people older than six months.

Sanofi Pasteur is the maker of Fluzone, one of the brands with a packaging insert stating that the impact on a pregnant woman and her fetus are unknown.

Donna Cary, a spokeswoman, attributed that to the fact that results of clinical studies involving pregnant women weren't included in the research presented decades ago when flu vaccine received government approval.

Because of that, flu vaccine manufacturers can't state that it's safe for pregnant women, she said.

However, there is a registry of negative impacts of flu vaccine, and nothing in that registry has prompted the groups such as the CDC to conclude that flu vaccine poses a danger for pregnant women, she said.

A sampling of flu vaccine policies at Harrisburg area hospitals found that some but not all mandate flu vaccine. PinnacleHealth mandates vaccinations, but allows exceptions for documented medical reasons, such as coming down with Guillian-Barre syndrome following a previous vaccination, or for religious reasons. Those who are exempt must wear a mask when within six feet of patients during flu season. A spokeswoman said no one has been fired or resigned due to the policy.

Carlisle Regional Medical Center has a similar policy, and no one has been fired as a result, a spokeswoman said.

Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center urges employees to get a shot and provides them for free, but doesn't require vaccination. But staffers who haven't been vaccinated must display a sticker on their ID badge and wear a mask when within six feet of patients.

Did you appreciate us brining you this information? Like us on Facebook to keep up with the latest news and updates: